Lords Sitting of 24 April 1896

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for Monday next) put off to Monday the 4th of May next.

RETIREMENT OF VESTRYMEN AND AUDITORS (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
Clause 1,—
[SHORT TITLE.]
This Act may be cited as the Retirement of Vestrymen (London) Act 1896.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS moved to insert after "vestrymen" the words "and auditor." He said that at present auditors were elected in the same way as vestrymen, and, as he understood, one of the objects of the noble Lord (Lord Monkswell) in promoting the Bill was to reduce expense, it was obviously desirable that auditors should be included in the Bill; otherwise expense would have to be incurred in separate elections.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid he had no objection to the alteration.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
Clause 2,—
[DEFINITIONS.]
In this Act,—

(1.) The expression "the Council" means the London County Council.

(2.) The expression "vestry" means a vestry elected under the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1890, and any Act amending the same.

LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS moved that "vestry" should include "the Woolwich Local Board of Health, as if the members
1610
thereof were vestrymen." He said the Local Board at Woolwich retired annually by thirds. Woolwich was within the Metropolitan area, and the Local Board discharged many of the duties of the London vestries, being for example the sanitary authority; and it seemed desirable that the Bill should extend to the governing body of the parish of Woolwich, in the same way as to other parts of the Metropolis.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he entirely concurred with the noble Lord.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4,—

ELECTIONS TO BE TRIENNIAL, AND FULL NUMBER OF VESTRYMEN CHOSEN.
When the Council has made an Order under the last preceding section, the first election of vestrymen of the vestry on whose application such Order was made shall take place on such day in the month of May next after the making of such order as the vestry appoint, and every subseqent election shall take place in every third year, on such day in the month of May as the vestry appoint, and at such first and every such subsequent triennial election the full number of vestrymen of which such vestry is to consist under the provisions of the Metropolis Management Act 1855, shall be elected.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH THE EARL OF DENBIGH moved to insert before "the month of May next" the word "third." He said that when the Bill was read a Second time, he expressed a doubt whether it was required; but the House had decided that question in the affirmative. Therefore, as a matter of public convenience, it was highly desirable that the Bill should be taken advantage of by every vestry in London. It would be inconvenient that some should continue to be elected on the present system, and others should adopt the triennial system. As the Bill stood, the London Vestries were asked to adopt the triennial system in the month of May next after the passing of the Bill. In other words, two-thirds of the members elected were asked to commit a kind of official suicide. Those who were elected last May were asked to run the risk of a contested election in the following May, while, if

1611
they adhered to the present system, they would be safe in their seats for three years. In the same way another third of the vestrymen would have to run the risk of a contested election at the end of two years, instead of remaining three years in their present security. Thus, two-thirds of each vestry would be practically against the adoption of this Act. He had put down the Amendment on behalf of several persons who were keenly interested in municipal politics in London, and who had practical experience of the working of London Vestries. He was assured that there was a strong feeling on this point, and that the Bill would be rendered nugatory without the Amendment he proposed. The object of the Bill was to assimilate the election of vestrymen to the election of boards of guardians, under the Act passed three years ago; by which boards of guardians were given the option of adopting the triennial system. They had adopted it because the effect with them was exactly the contrary of what it would be with vestries under this Bill. He understood the proposal was somewhat distasteful to the Local Government Board, because some members who had been elected for three years would be allowed to sit for five years. He was aware that the effect of the Amendment would be that members would retire by thirds at the end of three, four, and five years. The guardians were elected for three years, with the knowledge that those lowest on the poll would retire one-third in one year, and another third in two years. Yet the guardians were given the option of practically prolonging their existence, and all he asked was that the same option should be given to vestrymen in order that, as a matter of public convenience, we might have a uniform system among the Metropolitan Vestries, and we should be subjected to the inconvenience of seeing the Measure adopted by some and rejected by others.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, the logical outcome of the noble Lord's speech would be that the Bill should be compulsorily applied to the vestries, and it should compel all the members of a vestry to retire every three years. It was proposed to leave the matter to the option of the vestries, and it was thought the best plan would be to give them no personal inducement to adopt or not to
1612
adopt the Act, and to leave them free from any bias, except considerations of public convenience. No doubt, as the Bill was framed, it offered a slight personal inducement to some not to adopt it; they might have some slight bias against it; but under the Amendment, if they consulted only their own personal convenience, they would be desirous to adopt the Bill. He thought it undesirable that vestries should be put in such a position that the members should have a strong personal inducement to vote one way or the other. He would suggest as a compromise, the insertion of the "second" month of May, and then the personal inclinations of the members would be more equally divided. His own feeling was that the vestries should not be put under a personal bias but should be left to vote according to their views of the public convenience.
LORD HARRISsaid he could not contest the fact that under the Bill there would be some who would not enjoy the delights of office for as long as they had anticipated when they were originally elected, but from the point of view of a Government Department, it appeared that that was more desirable than that the Government should, by its own action, ensure a certain number of members remaining in office for two years and longer than they were originally elected for, and in certain other proportions for one year longer. If the Amendment was pressed to a Division, he must, on behalf of the Local Government Board, ask their Lordships not to accept it; but he would mention to the President the suggested middle course, and ask him to consider that as well as the Amendment. As at present advised, he must oppose the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid he was willing to accept the compromise, and would now withdraw the proposed Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

ACT TO HAVE EFFECT NOTWITHSTANDING PROVISIONS OF METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS.
The provisions of this Act shall have full effect notwithstanding any of the provisions of the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1890, or any Acts amending the same.
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL moved to add to the Clause—
"And after the passing of this Act every vestry, whether it comes under the provisions of this Act as to retirement or not, shall be entitled to fix the date in the month of May on which the election of vestrymen shall take place."
He said this was a question on which there had been a good deal of feeling. The vestries had contended that they were legally entitled to fix the date of their own election; and the Local Government Board had had a legal opinion that they were entitled to do it. At first the Local Government Board were determined to abide by their view; but he was happy to find that the Local Government Board had said they would give way if the vestries would adopt this Bill; but there was no reason why a vestry which did not adopt it should be placed in this matter in a different position from one that adopted it. The two classes ought not to be put in a different position; and if the Local Government Board surrendered their claim in one case they should do so in the other. As a matter of drafting, he understood the Local Government Board thought the Amendment might be improved, and he was, therefore, willing to leave the drafting of it to them.
LORD HARRISsaid, the Local Government Board were willing that this power should be given to the vestry. There was no objection to the principle of the Amendment, but he asked the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment now, and at a subsequent stage he would bring up a new clause more in conformity with the ideas of the Local Government Board as to wording, and also some consequential Amendment in the preceding clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause 5 added to the Bill.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH THE EARL OF DENBIGH, in order to give the vestries a little more time, moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:—
"6. That this Act shall come into operation on the first day of October in the year One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six."
1614
No time being mentioned in the Bill, it would not otherwise come into force until the following January.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, that in the absence of words to the contrary, the Bill would come into force when it received the Royal Assent. The vestry should be allowed to consider the matter whenever they liked, and pass a resolution when the Act was passed.
LORD HARRISsaid there was no objection to a date being fixed.
LORD MONKSWELLsuggested that the usual course should be followed, and as soon as the Bill was passed, the vestry should have an opportunity of passing a resolution. It was simply a vexatious and harassing condition to delay the power of the vestries.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked what possible reason could there be for delay. The Bill was an optional and not a compulsory Measure. The vestries were enabled to make application to the Local Government Board, but they were not compelled to do so immediately. He did not see the object of fixing a date in these circumstances.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.—[No 60.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
To be read 2a on Friday the 8th of May next.— (The Lord Harris.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DETERMINATION OF DIFFERENCES) BILL.
To be read 2a on Friday next —(The Lord Harris.)
House adjourned at Five minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.